Terrifying time. I'm in Texas, but I went to school with a very progressive staff. I remember overhearing my teachers at the time, and their dread of letting those monsters in. They weren't happy about it at all. It was made pretty clear we could tell them whatever we wanted. Supremely awkward to have them sitting on the couch with us at the library. I'll never forget one of my fellow students arguing with them about Dresden and US war crimes just passively making that the only thing he wanted to talk about. We just need to use that time to inform this hysteria. Without a 9/11, I'm not sure you can get the USA to a war footing with Iran. And even then, the signs will be much more clear.
We need to focus on real things and not the imaginary conflict between an idiot mullah, and our own clown fascists. Like for a starter, why can't the Democrats get a candidate that resists genocide? This whole "we won't start a war with Iran" is a gross distraction from the Democrats' position just six months ago, where they were holding water for a genocide while their client state attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria.
There appears to be a new doctrine emerging and I think Iran is very much at risk. The B-52 can be fitted to carry two of the GBU-43 to declutter a the surface of life, while the B-2 complements with the GBU-57 for ground penetrating effect. Air superiority and massive asymmetry without the expense of a missile force. Advance F-35s set up for beyond S-3/4/500 engagement is likely to pave the way. The C30E single GBU-43 Talon II Herc is near disposable and can be deployed later to clear most life of the surface of built up areas one the Advance teams have disabled the bulk of military infrastructure.
The cost of these precision guided bombs is a magnitude lower (and then some) for most missiles performing the same tasks). Air dominance is the key and is easily attainable. Israel has its own nuclear force anyway and doesn't need U.S. assets (only their defenses) to safely achieve a strike.
The low cost approach for maximal effect seems to alluring for them NOT to use it.
This maximal conventional approach has the added benefit of allowing the offensive force to instantly Occupy or launch a ground assault without risk of radiation exposure. There is almost zero chance nuclear weapons will be used in this occupation of the Middle East, now. But I'm nearly certain that a full scale attack on Iran will occur soon.
It can also be used in Gaza and Lebanon.
Mitigation means spreading out: Resistance forces, assets, civilians.
There was a some good analysis here but you made it seem like the only option to endless war was the Green Party. At the Art of Liberty Foundation we are exposing the illegitimacy of "government" on its face. The real option is voluntaryism... No one gets the ring of power cause there isn't a ring of power... "Government" has been the Biggest Scam in History.... https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/govt-is-illegitimate-and-criminal
The foundation is correct. Israel is in a state of undeclared war with its neighbors: Hamas (the government of Palestine), and Hezbollah (armed resistance in Lebanon), and I would even agree with the Palestine at large, the Lebanese state, and the Syrian state. In all of these cases, Israel could aggress at an anytime, or occupy and it would not come as a surprise to anyone.
They *clearly* do not believe that with Iran. Regardless of whether or not Israel wants a war with Iran, they're clearly not in one. And so the argument of war by proxy of partner fails at that point. Israel and Iran go through periods of heightened tension and de-escalation. That's different from a war.
But regardless, let's assume there was a war between Iran and Israel. There is no guarantee that the USA would side with Israel. It's assumed only because of lack of will to challenge Israel. They're a major strategic ally (MNNA) country. They have no right to guarantee of defense, no matter the "stand with Israel" rhetoric adopted by politicians. Lots of MNNA countries go through similar aggressive cycles for example Pakistan, and India, and no one would argue the USA is at war with India. Though in a war between India and Pakistan we'd likely intervene on Pakistan's behalf.
The USA is not just complicit in the Israeli genocide. They're enabling it. That's not just a look. But that's not evidence of an alliance. The USA just has no concern for civilian life. That's also not just true in Israel. For example, Turkey ethnically cleansed Northern Syria with NATO arms and committed a horrible atrocity against the Kurds, and the Kurds were even a fundamental part of the USA's anti-Assad strategy
I don't imagine the USA wants Israel to complete their ethnic cleansing this way. They would rather maintain the illusion of rules-based order. But given they don't value Palestinian lives, there is less resistance to spreading the Zionist narrative and playing ball, then to correct course and acknowledge the genocide and their role in it (which would have actual international ramifications too).
Really solid analysis. Having flashbacks to the recruiting table at my high school in the 90s.
Terrifying time. I'm in Texas, but I went to school with a very progressive staff. I remember overhearing my teachers at the time, and their dread of letting those monsters in. They weren't happy about it at all. It was made pretty clear we could tell them whatever we wanted. Supremely awkward to have them sitting on the couch with us at the library. I'll never forget one of my fellow students arguing with them about Dresden and US war crimes just passively making that the only thing he wanted to talk about. We just need to use that time to inform this hysteria. Without a 9/11, I'm not sure you can get the USA to a war footing with Iran. And even then, the signs will be much more clear.
We need to focus on real things and not the imaginary conflict between an idiot mullah, and our own clown fascists. Like for a starter, why can't the Democrats get a candidate that resists genocide? This whole "we won't start a war with Iran" is a gross distraction from the Democrats' position just six months ago, where they were holding water for a genocide while their client state attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria.
There appears to be a new doctrine emerging and I think Iran is very much at risk. The B-52 can be fitted to carry two of the GBU-43 to declutter a the surface of life, while the B-2 complements with the GBU-57 for ground penetrating effect. Air superiority and massive asymmetry without the expense of a missile force. Advance F-35s set up for beyond S-3/4/500 engagement is likely to pave the way. The C30E single GBU-43 Talon II Herc is near disposable and can be deployed later to clear most life of the surface of built up areas one the Advance teams have disabled the bulk of military infrastructure.
The cost of these precision guided bombs is a magnitude lower (and then some) for most missiles performing the same tasks). Air dominance is the key and is easily attainable. Israel has its own nuclear force anyway and doesn't need U.S. assets (only their defenses) to safely achieve a strike.
The low cost approach for maximal effect seems to alluring for them NOT to use it.
This maximal conventional approach has the added benefit of allowing the offensive force to instantly Occupy or launch a ground assault without risk of radiation exposure. There is almost zero chance nuclear weapons will be used in this occupation of the Middle East, now. But I'm nearly certain that a full scale attack on Iran will occur soon.
It can also be used in Gaza and Lebanon.
Mitigation means spreading out: Resistance forces, assets, civilians.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ijiraq/p/us-hiding-gbu-43b-thermobaric-mass?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=jwa6q
There was a some good analysis here but you made it seem like the only option to endless war was the Green Party. At the Art of Liberty Foundation we are exposing the illegitimacy of "government" on its face. The real option is voluntaryism... No one gets the ring of power cause there isn't a ring of power... "Government" has been the Biggest Scam in History.... https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/govt-is-illegitimate-and-criminal
That's a crazy idea. ;) ...
> nobody has the right to use violence or extortion on anybody else, even if they're in the minority
And Derrick Broze is a woman beater.
(he asked for proof, and I gladly provided receipts https://substack.evancarroll.com/p/kang-of-the-grifters)
"Joint practice with Israel"
If you are 'practicing' WITH Israel, the state that is constantly at undeclared war with its neighbours then you are kind of at war with Iran.
The foundation is correct. Israel is in a state of undeclared war with its neighbors: Hamas (the government of Palestine), and Hezbollah (armed resistance in Lebanon), and I would even agree with the Palestine at large, the Lebanese state, and the Syrian state. In all of these cases, Israel could aggress at an anytime, or occupy and it would not come as a surprise to anyone.
They *clearly* do not believe that with Iran. Regardless of whether or not Israel wants a war with Iran, they're clearly not in one. And so the argument of war by proxy of partner fails at that point. Israel and Iran go through periods of heightened tension and de-escalation. That's different from a war.
But regardless, let's assume there was a war between Iran and Israel. There is no guarantee that the USA would side with Israel. It's assumed only because of lack of will to challenge Israel. They're a major strategic ally (MNNA) country. They have no right to guarantee of defense, no matter the "stand with Israel" rhetoric adopted by politicians. Lots of MNNA countries go through similar aggressive cycles for example Pakistan, and India, and no one would argue the USA is at war with India. Though in a war between India and Pakistan we'd likely intervene on Pakistan's behalf.
I defer to your wider knowledge, I know this is going to sound over simplified but to the untrained eye the US looks like a vessel state of Israel.
US pilots might not be flying the bombers but US bombs have been raining down on unarmed civilians for over a year.
Not a good look from the global south. (I prefer the term ‘global majority’)
The USA is not just complicit in the Israeli genocide. They're enabling it. That's not just a look. But that's not evidence of an alliance. The USA just has no concern for civilian life. That's also not just true in Israel. For example, Turkey ethnically cleansed Northern Syria with NATO arms and committed a horrible atrocity against the Kurds, and the Kurds were even a fundamental part of the USA's anti-Assad strategy
I don't imagine the USA wants Israel to complete their ethnic cleansing this way. They would rather maintain the illusion of rules-based order. But given they don't value Palestinian lives, there is less resistance to spreading the Zionist narrative and playing ball, then to correct course and acknowledge the genocide and their role in it (which would have actual international ramifications too).